[Mb-civic] big pharma controls all medical journals that it does not publish itself

[IHHS at aol.com]

The truth about medical journals, and how drug companies exert  heavy 
influence over published scientific articles
Can the medical  journals be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased 
information about medicine  even as they are almost entirely funded by drug companies? 
In her book,  Vaccination, Peggy O'Mara writes that the current era of medical  
beliefs (or dogma) began to develop soon after Louis Pasteur's demonstration  
that some pathogens could be converted into vaccines. The medical community 
then  decided to try the same method for all afflictions. Medical journals were 
soon  afterward reporting the discovery of "miracle" vaccines for every 
disease under  the sun, and drug companies were simultaneously advertising those 
vaccines on  those very same pages.  
Medical journals rely on Big Pharma's ads to pay the bills
Mainstream  media has long depended on advertising revenue to cover its 
bills. The money  generated by newspaper subscriptions doesn't even begin to 
scratch the surface  of a daily paper's running costs. Television stations also rely 
on advertising  clients to foot the bill for everyday operations. And of 
course it is no  surprise that medical companies are only too happy to shell out 
some bucks in  advertising to make their product a household name. The big 
difference in  medical journals is that readers are hardly likely to see a 
non-medical ad  within its pages.  
On _television_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html) , a plethora of 
commercials offer products  ranging from _dog food_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/012647.html)  to cosmetics to medicine. In _newspapers_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/009335.html) , the ads often run the gamut of available  products and local 
services. Medical journals, though, have a specific kind of  advertising 
content within their pages. All their ads are for hospitals or  drugs; there's not a 
non-medical ad in sight.  
Since medicine is the subject of the entire journal, medical ads seem par for 
 the course. But what should an editor do if a product advertised on a 
particular  page isn't 100 percent safe? It might not be cost-effective for a  
budget-strapped medical journal to remove the ad and publish an article  discussing 
the product's drawbacks. They run the risk of angering the  pharmaceutical 
company and losing revenue. Donald M. Epstein, author of  Healing Myths, adds 
that even if the dangers of a drug or medical  procedure were to be included in 
a respected medical journal, often the  "religious" belief that doctors, and 
even patients, have in _conventional  medicine_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/006845.html)  overrides their decision-making process.  
People believe that if a drug is FDA-approved and on the market, it must be  
okay. If a drug proves fatal to 10 or even 10,000 patients, doctors will still 
 staunchly defend it, claiming the benefits outweigh the risks. Epstein's  
feelings are that anyone with a little common sense should be enraged by the  
fact that the entire industry is operating with self-imposed blinders -- from  
the _pharmaceutical companies_ (http://www.newstarget.com/000865.html)  that 
hawk unsafe drugs to the  medical journals that publish doctored _clinical  
studies_ (http://www.newstarget.com/008119.html)  and misleading ads.  
What really makes the controversy interesting for many folks is this: If the  
journals were ever to publish a study that finds a procedure within a 
different  healing art -- such as herbal or chiropractic medicine -- to be harmful or 
fatal  to patients, there would be a loud and obvious call to outlaw or 
regulate that  practice. Only Big Pharma and the Western _health care  system_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/007234.html)  are allowed to operate with obvious 
dangers (like the _Vioxx_ (http://www.newstarget.com/004055.html)  drug killing 
more Americans than the entire  Vietnam War) and get away with it. A further 
frustration for Epstein is that  drugs and procedures proven to be unsafe or 
ineffective do not deter the medical  community from developing new treatments 
based on the old "biomedical story."  
Consumers falsely trust medical journals to be impartial
Richard Smith,  the ex-editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), publicly 
criticized his  former publication, saying the BMJ was too dependent on 
advertising revenue to  be considered impartial. Smith estimates that between 
two-thirds to  three-quarters of the trials published in major journals -- Annals of 
Internal  Medicine, Journal of the _American Medical Association_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/001460.html) , Lancet and New England  Journal of Medicine -- 
are funded by the industry, while about one-third of the  trials published in 
the BMJ are thus funded. He further adds that trials are so  valuable to drug 
companies that they will often spend upwards of $1 million in  reprint costs 
(which are additional sources of major revenues for medical  journals). 
Consumers trust medical journals to be the impartial and "true"  source of 
information concerning a _prescription  drug_ (http://www.newstarget.com/001891.html) , 
but few are privy to what is truly going on behind the scenes  at both drug 
trials and medical journals.  
Scientists who conduct drug trials may be hard-pressed to stay impartial when 
 the manufacturers so often pay them for lectures and consultations, or when 
they  are conducting research that has been funded by the company. In 
addition, as  stated by doctors Mark Hyman and Mark Liponis in Ultraprevention, since  
drug companies are so reliant on the word of doctors, they often visit 
_doctors'  offices_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html)  to hand out free 
samples, take the staff out to lunch, offer  free gifts -- including toys for kids, 
seminars at expensive restaurants and  junkets to the Caribbean islands -- and 
frequently sponsor continuing education  for doctors.  
According to Smith, BMJ editors want to be impartial most of the time, but it 
 is often impossible for editors to spot a rigged drug trial, notwithstanding 
the  "peer review" process theoretically used by drug companies in order to 
have  their research independently checked. Smith said that drug companies 
don't  fiddle with the results of a trial, but they obtain positive results by 
asking  the "right" questions. Another pothole mentioned by Smith was the choice 
a  publisher might face to either publish a drug trial that would bring in 
$100,000  in profit, or lay off an employee in order to meet the end-of-year 
budget. The  answer, according to Smith, is to have more publicly-funded trials, 
or have  journals not publish them at all.  
Big Pharma's published studies lack transparency
Smith provided specific  examples of wrongdoing, including the testing of a 
new drug against a treatment  already known to be inferior, using too high or 
too low of a dosage for a  competing drug, testing on too small of a scale, or 
choosing which results they  want to make public. The Association of the 
British Pharmaceutical Industry  denied Smith's allegations, stating that it would 
not rig a trial due to the  high risk of being "found out." Richard Ley, a 
spokesman for the industry group,  said that it was not within the interests of 
the industry to make claims they  know to be untrue, since the cost of 
_lawsuits_ (http://www.newstarget.com/011764.html)  far outweigh any potential income 
those claims  might generate. Ley also said that Smith's suggestion for more 
publicly-funded  trials was not realistic.  
Fiona Godlee, current editor of the BMJ, did not debunk Smith's claims; in  
fact, she agreed with much of what Smith said. "The BMJ takes the issues of  
transparency very seriously," she said. "We continue to call for public  
registration of all clinical trials and full disclosure of results, regardless  of 
outcome." Godlee added that there was a need for more transparency in the  
journal and that it was something they were working on. The difficulty, Godlee  
said, lies in having to tell a drug company to "clean up their act," while  
simultaneously relying on them for money. Godlee added, "What we need now is a  
debate about the issue."  
In his book, On the Take, Dr. Jerome Kassirer says he is confident  that, for 
the latter part of the 20th century, drug company ads had no influence  on 
the editorial content of the New England Journal of Medicine. But he also  adds 
that he is not sure the same could be said for other medical journals. He  
agrees with some of what Smith says, citing a negative study of the 
_pharmaceutical  industry_ (http://www.newstarget.com/007701.html)  published in Annals of 
Internal Medicine, which resulted in  dramatically lower pharmaceutical 
advertising for the journal. This decrease in  advertising interest continued for 
many months. This is an example of why  medical journal editors are, at best, 
afraid of contradicting their major source  of income.  
Misrepresenting drug trials is the "norm" in medical journals
The  scandal in medical research is far more shocking than the corporate 
scandals  that recently created headlines, according to John Abramson in Overdosed 
 America. Abramson says that the withholding of negative results and the  
misrepresentation of research are accepted norms in the field of drug trials, or  
"commercially sponsored medical research."  
He even goes as far as to say that there is a web of corporate influence in  
the form of "regulatory agencies, commercially sponsored medical education,  
brilliant advertising, expensive public relations campaigns, manipulation of  
free media coverage," as well as the aforementioned relationship between 
trusted  medical voices and the _medical industry_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/001393.html) . In Abramson's view, this all  contributes to the silencing of the 
industry's corruption. He likens the  situation to the recent corporate scandal 
in which securities analysts received  payments in order to write reports that 
drove up _stock  prices_ (http://www.newstarget.com/003031.html) .  
According to Ann Blake Tracy, PhD, author of PROZAC: Panacea or  Pandora, a 
"CBS HealthWatch" article even accused pharmaceutical companies  of authoring 
drug studies themselves, then paying doctors to sign their names  onto them. 
Furthermore, of the approximately 3,000 medical journals published  monthly, 
only 10 percent are cross-indexed into a computer system, according to  Charles 
T. McGee, in his book, Heart Frauds. This cross-indexed  material is closely 
reviewed by "conservative editorial boards" in order to  screen out 
controversial content. The 10 percent of material that's been  approved is the only 
material available to a doctor when he asks a medical  librarian to conduct a 
computer search or a search of a CD-ROM service such as  Medline. On top of that is 
Kenny Ausubel's report, contained in his book,  When Healing Becomes a Crime, 
that many drug companies just cut out the  middle-man and publish their own 
medical journals.  
Inexpensive _herbal remedies_ (http://www.newstarget.com/012088.html)  never 
appear in medical  journals
Theoretically, for much the same reason dog food ads are absent  from their 
pages, medical journals never contain advertising or studies about  natural or 
herbal remedies. Supposedly, they're not considered "in tune" with  the 
content of the journals. However, many nutritional experts and some medical  doctors 
postulate that it's actually due to the low amount of revenue generated  by 
such remedies, since _herbs_ (http://www.newstarget.com/008392.html)  are 
usually significantly less expensive than  over-the-counter and prescription drugs. 
This may be why such inexpensive  treatments often seem to be dismissed 
offhand by medical journal editors.  
McGee also writes about Dr. Richard Casdorph, who studied some old  
experiments in _chelation therapy_ (http://www.newstarget.com/008631.html)  (a 
procedure that uses  ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) to remove metals from 
the body) and had  success with the treatment by using methods that were not 
available when the  initial experiments were performed. In one case, Casdorph 
apparently saved two  patients from the amputation of their legs via chelation 
therapy. When he tried  to publish his study, many medical journals rejected it, 
stating that chelation  therapy was found to be ineffective years before, and 
was therefore  inappropriate content for their publications. Presumably, 
Casdorph would have  informed the editors that his study involved previously 
undiscovered methods, in  which case their reason for rejection would be a 
non-sequitur. Casdorph  eventually found a journal of alternative medicine that agreed 
to publish his  study.  
Opponents of the perceived corruption in medical journals offer many  
solutions. Smith, as mentioned previously, would either like more  privately-funded 
studies published or have none published at all. Abramson feels  that 
researchers have to have access to all the results of their studies,  perform their own 
analysis of data, write their own conclusions and submit the  report to 
peer-reviewed medical journals. A change may be in the cards, and as  Richard 
Gerber, MD, notes, the number of patients seeking alternative medical  answers to 
their problems is becoming too large for mainstream medical media to  ignore. 
Gerber says that some medical journals are even publishing articles that  
explore the nature of these "unorthodox" treatments and discuss why patients are  
seeking _alternative health_ (http://www.newstarget.com/011024.html)  care.  
Research Notes:
Ex-medical journal editor reveals drug firms' dirty  tricks  
IAN JOHNSTON  
SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT  
PHARMACEUTICAL companies are using their massive financial clout to corrupt  
medical journals by rigging clinical trials of new drugs, it was claimed 
today.  
Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), has  
exposed a series of tricks used by drug firms to ensure good publicity for new  
products in prestigious journals. He said it was often impossible for editors of  
the journals to spot a rigged trial - despite the process of "peer review" 
where  research is checked independently - and also highlighted a "conflict of  
interest" because publishing trials by major drug companies would result in  
increased sales.  
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry denied the  
allegations, saying it would make no sense to rig trials because they would  eventually 
be "found out".  
Writing in the online journal PLOS [Public Library of Science] Medicine, Mr  
Smith, who is now chief executive of private firm UnitedHealth Europe, said  
action should be taken to ensure journals were not becoming "an extension of 
the  marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies".  
"A large trial published in a major journal has the journal’s stamp of  
approval, will be distributed round the world and may well receive global media  
coverage," he said. "For a drug company, a favourable trial is worth thousands  
of pages of advertising.  
"The companies seem to get the results [in trials] they want not by fiddling  
the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer  
review, but rather by asking the ‘right’ questions."  
Med journals 'too close to firms' 
Medical journals are an extension of  the marketing arms of drug firms, says 
an ex-British Medical Journal editor.  
Dr Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ for 13 years, criticized the journals'  
reliance on drug company advertising.  
Writing in Public Library of Science Medicine, he also said journals were  
undermined by relying on clinical trials funded by the drugs industry.  
The BMJ said a debate was needed, but drug industry representatives rejected  
the criticisms.  
Dr Smith, who is now chief executive of healthcare firm UnitedHealth Europe,  
said the most conspicuous example of the dependence was reliance on 
advertising,  but he added it was "the least corrupting form of dependence" since it 
was there  for all to see.  
Dr Smith said the publication of industry-funded trials was a much bigger  
problem.  
He said: "For a drug company a favorable trial is worth thousands of pages of 
 advertising, which is why a company will sometimes spend upwards of a 
million  dollars on reprints of the trial for worldwide distribution."  
And Dr Smith argued, unlike ads, these trials were seen as the highest form  
of evidence.  
"Fortunately from the point of view of the companies which fund these trials  
- but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who publish them - 
they  rarely produce results that are unfavorable to the companies' products."  
He said editors are put under further pressure by the demands of producing a  
profit.  
"An editor may thus face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest - publish 
 a trial that will bring in $100,000 (£54,000) of profit, or meet the end of 
year  budget by firing an editor."  
Publicly-funded trials 
He said there needed to be more publicly-funded trials - about two thirds are 
 currently paid for by the industry - or journals should stop publishing such 
 trials.  
BMJ editor Dr Fiona Godlee said she agreed with much of what Mr Smith said.  
"There is certainly a need for more transparency, it is something we are  
working on.  
"The whole issue about advertising is something journals are uncomfortable  
about.  
"On the one hand we are saying clean up your act, while we are fairly  
dependent on the advertising for our survival.  
"What we need now is a debate about the issue."  
But Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry,  
said Smith's criticisms were unfounded.  
"There would be an outcry if a pharmaceutical company tried to put pressure  
on.  
"And we must also remember these trials are peer reviewed."  
He also added it was not realistic to think trials could be funded form  
public money.  
Excerpt from story from BBC NEWS: 
_http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4552509.stm_ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4552509.stm)    
Even when evidence is published in respected medical journals documenting the 
 dangers of certain drugs and procedures, the unquestioned and almost 
religious  belief in the biomedical model still rules the decision-making process 
among  doctors and patients alike. If the above findings applied to practitioners 
of  any other healing art, including _chiropractors_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/004215.html) , acupuncturists, or herbalists, their  professions would have 
been eliminated, their proponents ridiculed or thrown in  jail, and their 
schools closed by order of the courts. Instead, the medical  establishment today 
enjoys incredible prestige. Philanthropists donate billions  of dollars for 
medical research, construction of hospitals, and other curing  establishments. 
Even when it is proven that certain drugs or procedures never  worked or no 
longer work, new treatments, based on the old biomedical story, are  generated 
every day. 
Healing Myths by Donald M Epstein, page 73  
Before long, drug companies themselves acquired and published medical  
journals, pouring their proprietaries through the funnel of official medical  
publications to disperse through doctors. They also lavished advertising dollars  on 
independent medical journals, becoming their fiscal anchor. By the turn of  
the century, only one out of 250 medical journals relied solely on subscription 
 revenues from its professional constituency.28 
When Healing Becomes A  Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 287  
Three of these studies were published in leading medical journals. No efforts 
 were made to attract media attention to the embarrassing results. If the 
media  had picked up the story they could have accurately reported, "The 
diagnostic  test used to scare the pants off heart disease patients and coerce them 
into  billions of dollars of _unnecessary surgical procedures_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/012291.html)  is a scam." The  information was ignored by physicians 
and never picked up by the press.  
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 14  
Drug companies control what gets published in medical journals through their  
advertising dollars. An interesting situation surfaced several years ago when 
a  medical journal published a double-blind study showing an herb had 
beneficial  effects in the condition being studied. 
Heart Frauds by Charles T  McGee MD, page 151  
Most medical journals now contain about one-third printed material and  
two-thirds slick advertisements for drugs. According to the Wall Street Journal,  
drug companies spent over $330,000,000 on advertising directed at doctors in  
1990. You can rest assured major medical journals that rely on drug industry  
money are not going to publish articles that demonstrate benefits from 
competing  treatments such as diets, herbs, acupuncture, chelation, vitamins, 
minerals,  amino acids, or other complimentary approaches. 
Heart Frauds by  Charles T McGee MD, page 151  
Then again, what about biting the hand that feeds you? Some scientists may be 
 swayed because they receive money from the chemical or pharmaceutical 
industries  forgiving lectures or consulting, or their research may be funded 
through  industry. For example, since 1997 nearly half the articles evaluating drugs 
in  the New England Journal of Medicine were written by scientists who worked 
as  paid advisers to drugmakers or received major research funding from them. 
Most  medical journals these days don't require the authors of studies to 
stay  independent of industry. 
Hormone Deception by Dr Lindsey Berkson,  page 28  
There is also little information about any possible influences of the  
profitability of medical journals (advertising, reprint orders) on journals'  
editorial content. I am confident that for at least the last quarter of the  
twentieth century, these commercial influences had no influence on editorial  
decisions made by the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, but I have  no 
inside information on other journals. Dr. Richard Smith, editor of the  
British Medical Journal, has raised the concern that lucrative advertising and  
reprint sales can be a corrupting influence.15 One experience at the Annals of  
Internal Medicine in 1992 sent a chill down the spines of editors and publishers 
 alike. When the (then) editors, Drs. Suzanne and Robert Fletcher, published 
a  study sharply critical of the pharmaceutical industry,16 pharmaceutical  
advertising in the journal declined substantially, and remained lower than usual 
 for months thereafter.17 For editors of many journals whose profit margins 
are  not robust, that experience might lead them to be chary about criticizing 
the  advertisers who support their publications. These issues are worthy of 
much more  study, but whether editors can be forthcoming about the factors that 
influence  them, and whether the editors' personal financial conflicts 
influence them in  judging what to publish will be difficult, if not impossible, to 
assess.  
On The Take by Jerome P Kassirer M.D., page 91  
What I found over the next two and a half years of "researching the research" 
 is a scandal in medical science that is at least the equivalent of any of 
the  recent corporate scandals that have shaken Americans' confidence in the  
integrity of the corporate and financial worlds. Rigging medical studies,  
misrepresenting research results published in even the most influential medical  
journals, and withholding the findings of whole studies that don't come out in a 
 sponsor's favor have all become the accepted norm in commercially sponsored  
medical research. To keep the lid sealed on this corruption of medical  
science—and to ensure its translation into medical practice—there is a complex  
web of corporate influence that includes disempowered regulatory agencies,  
commercially sponsored medical education, brilliant advertising, expensive  public 
relations campaigns, and manipulation of free media coverage. And last,  but 
not least, are the financial ties between many of the most trusted medical  
experts and the medical industry. These relationships bear a remarkable  
resemblance to the conflicts of interest the Securities and Exchange Commission  
recently brought to a halt after learning that securities analysts were  receiving 
bonuses for writing reports that drove up stock prices with the intent  of 
bringing in more investment _banking_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009725.html)  
business. 
Overdosed America by John  Abramson MD, page 9  
and public scrutiny. Nontransparency is now the norm for commercially  
sponsored medical research in much the same way that it had become the norm in  
accounting and business practices in companies such as _Enron_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/012579.html)  and Worldcom, and with much the same  results—though the 
magnitude of the cost in dollars and health still remains a  well-kept 
secret. Medical researchers must have access to all the results of  their studies, 
perform their own analyses of the data, write up their own  conclusions, and 
submit the report for publication to peer-reviewed medical  journals. Research 
data must also be made available to peer reviewers for  medical journals and to 
the new oversight body for independent evaluation.  
Overdosed America by John Abramson MD, page 253  
Corporate-sponsored scientific symposiums provide another means for  
manipulating the content of medical journals. In 1992, the New England Journal  of 
Medicine itself published a survey of 625 such symposiums which found that 42  
percent of them were sponsored by a single pharmaceutical sponsor. There was a  
correlation, moreover, between single-company sponsorship and practices that  
commercialize or corrupt the scientific review process, including symposiums  
with misleading titles designed to promote a specific brand-name product.  
"Industry-sponsored symposia are promotional in nature and . . . journals often  
abandon the peer-review process when they publish symposiums,' the survey  
concluded.20 Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of the Journal of the American  
Medical Association, describes how the process works in plainer language:  
Trust Us We Are Experts by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, page 205  
And so on, and so on, until your _medicine  cabinet_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/005922.html)  looks like a pharmacy—which, of course, pleases the  
pharmaceutical companies. They'd like to think that doctors work for them.  Because 
these large pharmaceutical companies make money only when doctors  prescribe 
their drugs, they do everything they can to make sure that this  happens, from 
supporting medical journals with their ads to having their  representatives 
visit every single doctor's office in the country, where they  hand out free 
samples, buy lunch for the staff, distribute gifts—not just  paperweights and pens, 
but toys for the kids, "seminars" at excellent  restaurants, junkets on 
Caribbean islands. And since doctors are required to  continue their medical 
education, who do you suppose generally sponsors that  education? Pharmaceutical 
companies. 
Ultraprevention by Mark Hyman MD  and Mark Liponis MD, page 38  
And so on, and so on, until your medicine cabinet looks like a  pharmacy—
which, of course, pleases the pharmaceutical companies. They'd like to  think that 
doctors work for them. Because these large pharmaceutical companies  make 
money only when doctors prescribe their drugs, they do everything they can  to 
make sure that this happens, from supporting medical journals with their ads  to 
having their representatives visit every single doctor's office in the  
country, where they hand out free samples, buy lunch for the staff, distribute  
gifts—not just paperweights and pens, but toys for the kids, "seminars" at  
excellent restaurants, junkets on Caribbean islands. And since doctors are  
required to continue their medical education, who do you suppose generally  sponsors 
that education? Pharmaceutical companies. 
Ultraprevention by  Mark Hyman MD and Mark Liponis MD, page 38  
That marketing "strategy" isn't reserved just for patients. Medical doctors  
are targeted by drug advertising as well, and medical journals are filled with 
 ads pushing one drug over another. The drug industry spends millions of 
dollars  every year on advertising and, according to the report, "the money is 
well  spent, since marketing undoubtedly influences the way that doctors 
prescribe."  
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 150  
Following Pasteur's demonstration that attenuation of pathogenic microbes  
transformed some pathogens into vaccines, the international scientific community 
 rushed to identify and convert into vaccines the leading causes of death in 
the  industrial world: _tuberculosis_ (http://www.newstarget.com/010629.html) 
, pneumonia, cholera, dysentery,  diphtheria, meningitis, _influenza_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/003641.html) , typhoid, childbed fever, and sexually  
transmitted diseases. Corrupt pharmaceutical companies quickly started producing  
vaccines scientifically "proven" to prevent all these diseases and more. 
medical  journals rushed into print successful accounts of the discovery of 
"miracle"  vaccines for tuberculosis, syphilis, and other such diseases. American 
medical  journals also started carrying advertisements for and receiving enticing 
funds  from pharmaceutical companies selling such vaccines. Most, if not all, 
of these  vaccines were worthless; many were even harmful. And though they 
were published  in the leading medical journals, supporting studies were bogus. 
But then, as  now, it was difficult for many to accept that pharmaceutical 
companies could be  guilty of chicanery. 
Vaccination By Peggy O'Mara, page 15  
A large proportion of the medical journals published today could not stay in  
business without advertising dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. While  
such strong-arm tactics as those alleged against JAMA are probably the  
exception, there is undoubtedly a more subtle, but more pervasive, type of  
pressure on editorial boards to keep their sources of funding happy. Since  virtually 
every medical journal advertiser would be displeased by articles  emphasizing 
natural medicine over drugs and surgery, there is little incentive  for 
editorial boards to accept these articles. 
Preventing And  Reversing Osteoporosis By Alan R Gaby MD, page 250  
I am not implying that those who review manuscripts are corrupt or even  
conscious of their bias. Nevertheless, doctors and scientists who are interested  
in _nutritional medicine_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009704.html)  almost 
invariably complain about  how difficult it is to have their work published in 
"peer-reviewed" medical  journals. 
Preventing And Reversing Osteoporosis By Alan R Gaby MD,  page 250  
All this research and money has been spent to prove the obvious! Yet, despite 
 all these logical findings, health authorities, medical doctors and other 
health  professionals are not taking advantage of the benefits that nutrition 
(_see related ebook on nutrition_ (http://www.truthpublishing.com/7laws.html) ) 
can bring in  reducing the incidence and mortality of many diseases. The thing 
that really  amazes me is that doctors do not recognize any relationship 
between diet and  brain function (behavior, learning capacity, etc.), proof enough 
that they are  eating too much junk! Their only "brain food" is reading 
medical journals which,  as I will expose, has resulted in atrocious judgmental 
errors. 
Health  In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 123  
A CBS health report was released: Ghostwriting Articles for medical journals  
_http://cbshealthwatch.medscape.com/medscape/p/G_Library/article.asp?Recld=238
1 _ 
(http://cbshealthwatch.medscape.com/medscape/p/G_Library/article.asp?Recld=2381) Now, many drug companies are actually writing those articles and then  
paying doctors to sign their names to them. It's called ghostwriting. "The  
articles are written by drug company researchers, given to an outside doctor to 
 review and sign his or her name to, and then submitted to a journal. In 
effect,  it's like washing dirty money," explains Douglas Peters, a medical 
_malpractice_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009187.html)  attorney. 
PROZAC Panacea or  Pandora by Ann Blake Tracy PhD, page 280  
Most medical journals nowadays devote about a third of their space to  
advertisements for drugs. According to The Wall Street Journal, drug companies  
spend over $330,000,000 on advertising directed toward doctors. medical journals  
quite literally rely on drug money for their survival. 
Saturated Fat  May Save Your Life by Bruce Fife ND, page 199  
"Drug companies spend millions of dollars educating physicians. Drug  
companies are the major advertisers in all medical journals. They fund clinical  
trials to determine the effectiveness of their drugs and they pay these  
researchers to speak at hospitals and _medical  schools_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/001105.html) . And if a drug company that makes a cholesterol-lowering drug  
provides most of the funds to conduct research on the effectiveness of that  drug, 
then there is a potential for bias, even if unwittingly, despite  independent 
monitoring committees that sometimes oversee these studies. Drug  companies 
provide sandwiches and doughnuts at hospital conferences and for the  doctors' 
lounges. They provide free samples of their products. Drug companies  also 
sponsor scientific meetings on the importance of lowering cholesterol,  often 
emphasizing the importance of cholesterol-lowering drugs. These meetings  are 
sometimes held in _resorts_ (http://www.newstarget.com/005144.html) , and doctors 
who attend may even be given free  transportation and expenses in addition to 
their food and entertainment."  
Saturated Fat May Save Your Life by Bruce Fife ND, page 91  
An example of a strong drug proponent who advocates chronic maintenance  
administration of antidepressant _medication_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/008247.html)  is Dr. Martin Keller, professor and chairman  of the department of 
_psychiatry_ (http://www.newstarget.com/009949.html)  at Brown University. Keller 
has published  numerous research articles, many of them coauthored with other  
psychopharmacologists who take a similar position on the treatment of 
_depression_ (http://www.newstarget.com/006752.html) . Appearing in prestigious medical 
and  psychiatric journals, Keller's articles have the appearance of impartial 
 academic publications. Yet, as described in Chapter 5, the October 8, 1999,  
Boston Globe revealed that "Keller earned a total of $842,000 last year 
[1998],  according to financial records, and more than half of his income came .. 
from  pharmaceutical companies whose drugs he touted in medical journals and at 
 conferences." For example, while publishing articles specifically endorsing 
_Zoloft_ (http://www.newstarget.com/007016.html)  for the chronic treatment of 
depression, Keller  received $218,000 in 1998 alone from Zoloft's 
manufacturer, Pfizer. "At the same  time," continued the Boston Globe, "Keller was 
receiving millions of dollars in  funding from the National Institute of Mental 
Health for research on depression  and ways to treat it." The Boston Globe said 
Keller cited his NIMH-funded  research on depression in an article in which he 
made claims on behalf of drugs  like Zoloft. See D. Kong and A. Bass, "Case at 
Brown Leads to Review, NIMH  Studies Tighter Rules on Conflicts," Boston 
Globe, October 8,1999, pp. B1,B5.  
Prozac Backlash by Joseph Glenmullen MD, page 373  
A recent survey of consumer health-care choices in the _United  States_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/003639.html)  found that nearly one in four Americans 
utilize some form of  alternative medicine. This means that consumers are 
spending more than a billion  dollars a year in the United States on alternative 
therapies. Because this trend  toward increased interest in alternative medicine 
is having a powerful economic  impact, more and more physicians and 
health-care providers are seeking  information about alternative _health  care_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/006170.html) . There are now several medical schools in the 
United States that  are offering courses to students on alternative medical 
treatments. Popular  medical journals are publishing articles that examine the 
reasons why patients  are seeking alternative health care and that explore the 
nature of "unorthodox"  treatments. 
Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber MD, page 510  
New breakthroughs about bone health are happening every day. There's always  
some cutting-edge technology described in the medical journals. There are 
loads  of lab tests and diagnostic criteria and better treatments under 
development,  and some of them will no doubt revolutionize the way we care for low _bone 
 density_ (http://www.newstarget.com/011480.html) . The demand for these 
advances is high (every baby boom woman  has a vested interest), so there's plenty 
of money in it for those who do the  best work. By all means keep up with the 
news, which will inevitably outpace  even an up-to-date book like this one, 
and choose the best new options to  maximize your health. 
The Bone Density Program George Kessler DO PC,  page 19  
In the late 1970s and 1980s, I added another interest—food politics. Medical  
research alone cannot change what Americans eat. Vital research paid for with 
 taxpayers' money remains locked in the medical journals unless it is  
communicated to the public and implemented by government policy. To help shape  that 
policy, I chaired the Nutrition Coordinating Committee at the NIH for nine  
consecutive years and co-chaired the Interagency Committee for Human Nutrition  
Research at the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House 
for  five years. These committees influenced nutrition and food policy 
throughout the  federal government. 
The Omega Diet by Artemis P Simopoulos MD and Jo  Robinson, page 365  
Aghast at Hoxsey's upset victory, Dr. Fishbein decided to lift the  
controversy outside medical journals to center stage in the public media. He  jointly 
authored "Blood Money" in the American Weekly, the Sunday magazine  supplement 
of the Hearst newspaper chain. The installment on cancer _quackery_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/001457.html)  was part of a lavish six-part "Medical  
Hucksters" series. It strutted Fishbein's purple prose and yellow _journalism_ 
(http://www.newstarget.com/007279.html) , lacerating his favorite target, Harry  
Hoxsey. The tirade smoldered against a lurid four-color painting of a  
frock-coated Dickensian figure. Wearing white 
When Healing Becomes A  Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 102  
..._chemotherapy_ (http://www.newstarget.com/008458.html)  research has made 
the headlines of the  majority of medical journals with all the academic 
fanfare, applause, prizes and  the solemn acceptance of the experts with authority 
on the subject. The  researchers are happy, their universities and institutes 
have obtained more  money for their impressive advances, the industry is 
bulging with profits and  the patients are dying. The only conclusion that can be 
drawn is that their  (pseudo) therapeutic value borders on the criminal. My 
professional pride cries  out for the academic recognition of the establishment, 
that the authorities of  the oncological branch would give me their blessing. 
My conscience as a  physician nevertheless demands that I offer to my patients 
sufficient resources  so that he or she can decide which route to follow in 
their struggle to recover  health. 
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page  340 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051105/00799526/attachment-0001.htm